| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/09/2004 2:37:39 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked @ poster’s request. |
Posted on 09/07/2004 9:39:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Iain Murray on Whitefield and Wesley
[excerpted, beginning at fourth paragraph]
When Whitefield returned to England at the end of 1738, after his first visit to America, he found that the awakening in London had been furthered by the conversion and subsequent ministry of the Wesleys. Immediately they began to work together. Under Whitefield's preaching the revival spread to Bristol and the West country in February and March 1739, and when he left that area at the beginning of April 1739, John Wesley was given the oversight of the work.
But before three months had elapsed it began to be evident that there had not been the same doctrinal development in the Wesleys on all points mentioned above. The fact is that while John Wesley had at his conversion in May 1738 accepted evangelical views on sin, faith, and the re-birth, he had at the same time retained his pre-conversion opinions on the doctrines of predestination and the extent of the atonement.
[From the final footnote to the article]
On leaving England in 1739 Whitefield was the leader of the awakening; when he returned in 1741 it was to find himself supplanted and Wesley organizing the movement around himself. He had cause to write at a later date: "I have been supplanted, despised, censured, maligned, judged by and separated from my nearest, dearest friends." (Works of George Whitefield, edited by Gillies, vol. 2, p. 466.) But Whitefield was too great to contend for personal prominence. The legend of "England before and after Wesley " began to originate from this time.
(Excerpt) Read more at albatrus.org ...
The original article, at the website posted, anyway, concludes with these words:
Doctrinal differences between believers should never lead to personal antagonism. Error must be opposed even when held by fellow members of Christ, but if that opposition cannot co-exist with a true love for all saints and a longing for their spiritual prosperity then it does not glorify God nor promote the edification of the Church.
Amen!
In our discussions of this topic, I would implore all - but especially those who hold to the Wesleyan or Arminian viewpoint, as this is written from the pro-Whitefield perspective - to remember their inclusion at the end of the article.
My, how times have changed. I think the Rel Mod would welcome such discourse. Good thing Whitefield and Wesley didn't have the Internet. :O)
"First, you (Wesley) say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9.
Wesley's point does have some logical support.
O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning--or rather sophistry--is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?
Something that has always puzzled me is just how a Calvinist knows whether election is true as they understand it. How can one determine if a free will decision is being made when someone accepts Christ as their personal Savior?
If the Calvinist position of election is true, preaching the Gospel is unnecessary, but the be must be some reason we a commanded to preach the Gospel to the world that has a real pupose. Whitefield's contention that it enables the elect to understand that he is part of that 'happy number' makes no logical sense.
At least it's getting more replies now, than it did two years ago when it was first posted.
odd indeed, thats usually the case
fwiw keywords "whitefield / wesley" helped me find it
On the contrary. I refer you to John 8. Our Lord Jesus shared the gospel with those He called children of the devil (v44). He also told some Jews later that they didn’t belong to Him:
“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” John 10:26-27
Time and space forbids me to go into the parable of the “lost” sheep or the “lost” coin in Luke 15 but Luke gives a perfect illustration with Zaccheus in Luke 19 where all the “righteous people” complain that our Lord Jesus went to eat with “sinners”. Our Lord Jesus, recorded by Luke, states that
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19:10
Quite frankly I can’t understand how much plainer it can get. Our Lord Jesus came to seek which is lost and His sheep hear His voice. We, likewise, are to seek which is lost and to allow Him to use our voice to call His sheep. We cannot do this unless we preach the gospel to all.
If the Calvinist position of election is true, preaching the Gospel is unnecessary, but the be must be some reason we a commanded to preach the Gospel to the world that has a real pupose. Whitefield's contention that it enables the elect to understand that he is part of that 'happy number' makes no logical sense.
It's called a command of the Lord, ctd. Whether it makes sense to us, or not, shouldn't matter, so long as we call Christ LORD. But if "reason" is your lord, and your own reasoning needs to understand the whole purpose before you'll obey the command, I suppose you have identified a real problem.
Notice that the article makes the following observations:
Under Whitefield's preaching the revival spread to Bristol and the West country in February and March 1739, and when he left that area at the beginning of April 1739, John Wesley was given the oversight of the work.Note that the revival work began with Whitefield. Also note that Whitefield was profoundly influenced by the great evangelists in the US...
he had, during 1740, made close friendships with such American evangelicals as the Tennents and Jonathan Edwards; through them he was doubtless led into a deeper understanding of Puritan theology and its relevance to evangelism and revivals. He also witnessed the outstanding blessing on their preaching.
Evangelism has always been a part of "orthodox" Calvinism. A failure to evangelize is often erroneously cited as a fault of Calvinism (as you point out above). A denial that evangelism is even neccesary is a defining trait of the perjorative "hyper Calvinism". Now, if we are not heeding our Lord's command to preach the gospel to, and make disciples of all nations, Calvinists indeed make themselves a woeful and reprehensible people for not following the words of our Lord.
(footnote) Before I posted this article, I was considering another article from albatrus.org to post - one that speaks more specifically to the question of Calvinism and evangelism. That article says this:
"this is the faith which has caused the Reformed Church in America to become one of the great missionary churches of all time. If you are conversant with the history of foreign missions, you know that, of course. You know that there are few churches, few denominations, which have sent forth so many to the mission fields of the world in proportion to their membership."I may still post it in the future, but for now you can read that other article here
Interesting. I was using the Title Search function.
Just because God wills something, does not mean there is no action on our part. Granted, we are not the initiators of our salvation, but we must certainly live it out to the end. I think you are confusing God's will with God's action.
Take this example:
God gave the promised land to the Jews but they still had to roam the deserts from Egypt to Israel to reach their promise. God obviously guided them and sustained them through this migration, but the Jews were still required to make the trip.
God uses ordinary means for His extraordinary will. Our salvation does not come at the snap of God's holy finger (although it could). God uses His scriptures, other people, and circumstances in our lives to reveal the Gospel to us. There are occasions of miraculous conversions but those are far outnumbered by the miracle of Christ revealed in ordinary means.
Very good illustration, VA. And on their arrival to the land of Israel, in Joshua 1, God tells Joshua that the land beyond the Jordan will belong to them. And yet the tribes of Israel still had to fight for it.
Even if God did predetermine who would and would not be saved for not other reason than that is what He decided, there is no way for man to be able know if it is true.
I think some members of the GRPL equate the two.
God gave the promised land to the Jews but they still had to roam the deserts from Egypt to Israel to reach their promise. God obviously guided them and sustained them through this migration, but the Jews were still required to make the trip.
I think the Israelites were punished with an extra 40 years in the desert because of disobedience and that if they had been obedient, they would have avoide the consequences/punishment for that disobedience.
I think this an excellent example of how everything is not predestined as some members of the GRPL understand it.
Well, our Lord Jesus sure knows who His sheep are. To me it's a blessed thought to know our Lord Jesus sought me, rescued me, and keeps me. And that IS what the Bible says.
You are entirely correct, at the very least in regards to correctly judging the "elect"ness of others. This is where the P in TULIP - the Perseverance of the Saints - comes into play as a visual aid to the observer. None of us - from the Pastor down to the layperson - knows what's in the hearts of that person in the pew next to us, or the church across the street. What we can do is observe their lives, and offer a temporal judgement as to their spiritual condition, tempered as limited to only as much as has been observed. When churches do this, people are either baptized, offered communion, or perhaps branded heretics or excommunicated. Having said a prayer found at the back of a tract may not be enough, at least not from the standpoint of the observer. It wasn't for Saul-turned-Paul. The church in Jerusalem wanted to take a wait-and-see attitude, based upon his past life and recent conversion, but it took a divine act experienced by the observers, to convince them otherwise. Paul's initial testimony did little to convince them.
Barring the witness of a divine act, none of these actions are IMO categorical, final decisions that render a person saved (or damned) eternally. Instead, they are a church's "best guess" as to that person's spiritual state are, and are recognitions (or denials) of temporal grace to that end. There is always a final judgement, and fallen men and women may misjudge (and mis-prosecute) others. But the more grounded in Scripture they are, and the more they are earnestly seeking the Lord's face in their decision-making, the less likely it will be.
I have no problem with thw 'P'. My comment was directed to unconditional election. No man can really know if unconditional election is true. One may speculate, but to claim it is absolutely true requires a great deal of faith.
I'm sure you meant "conditional election", but your point is made regardless. What it requires of the Calvinist is faith, and a little scriptural literacy.
And thank you for bringing the conversation back around to the topic at hand. Your comment points back to the basis of Whitefield's faith, and even illustrates his arguments against Wesley.
Hopefully, you and I can also learn from Whitefield's tremendous respect and affection for Wesley.
First of all, I am going to leap outside of scripture for an illustration. I don't like to do this as a matter of habit, but it doesn't appear to me that scripture is enough proof for you anyway.
God is creator of all. His is also omniscient, omnipotenet, and sovereign (not to mention a host of other divine attributes). God is not constrained by time as we are. Perhaps you could look at God as the greatest artist of all and His creation is one of His greatest works. God can see in this work all that has happened, all that is happening, and all that will happen in a single glance. You must also realize that God is not only observing this work of art, but created the art himself.
The idea of predestination is really moot from God's perspective. The idea of Man changing God's ordained plan is also laughable. The painting has already been painted. God does not "change His mind" or change at all, for that matter.
Yes, that statement struck me as well. Why would Whitefield wish to restrain the preaching of predestination? Did he think this was not of vital importance in the understanding of God's character?
It may be a harsh truth of scripture but there are many more truths in scripture just as difficult to comprehend. Did he bring this up only because it was a known dispute between the two camps?
pony
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.